Kansas votes for Intelligent Design

[MikeyIs4Dcats]

Originally posted by: broon

Originally posted by: MikeyIs4Dcats

Originally posted by: shimsham
wheres the problem? sounds like democracy in action. the citizens of missouri want it taught, so they voted it in.

Missouri != Kansas

and the people didn't vote....only the school board officials.

Agreed. Missouri > Kansas.

KDOT > MoDOT

 

[broon]

Originally posted by: MikeyIs4Dcats
KDOT > MoDOT

That's the only thing in K that > M. Except the Kansas turnpike !=KDOT.

 

[Spoooon]

Originally posted by: broon

Originally posted by: Spoooon
I don't know about others, but I haven't claimed that Darwin proved anything. I just think it's the best theory science has to offer. I certainly find it more reasonable than the idea that some all mighty uber biologist made everything.

But opponents to your thinking could make the reverse argument. That's why neither should be taught. Why teach something in school that might be right? We know how to cut open frogs and worms. We know the elements. We know how chemicals react to each other. Teach those things.

Wouldn't it be better to ignore Darwin and ID and instead address the way history is taught? Kids could learn more from that than the questionable science ideas.

Edit...troll somewhere else, Dave.

The difference is what I said before, most proponents of evolution (I guess fanatical dogmaticism might exist among them, I don't know) are open to new evidence. That's what science is about. Find evidence to support your position and be willing to test it. If it doesn't stand up to the test, then revise your theory.

Besides, who's to say that the all mighty uber biologist didn't just zap the puddle of goo and then sit back and let things run their course?

 

[sao123]

Originally posted by: broon
And your position is???

My position is that when naive people (scientists, teachers, students, religious people) all stop confusing evolution/natural selection (that all life evolves continuously over time, adpating to survive an ever changing environment) from biogenesis (that a single organism develeped out of a puddle of proteins, and all life came forth from this organism) then there will be no more need for arguement.


the evidence for evolution is stong.
the evidence is biogenisis is weak, and is no stronger than a creationist theory.
You cannot simply package the 2 together and call it one theory.

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: broon
Wouldn't it be better to ignore Darwin and ID and instead address the way history is taught? Kids could learn more from that than the questionable science ideas.

How is the theory of evolution to be advanced or disproven if it's not taught?
That's an advantage it has, it can be furthered or completely disproven--ID has not these qualities. It either is or isn't, with no way to be disproven, and the only way it may be proven is if the designer steps forward and says "Yep, it was me."

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: sao123

Originally posted by: broon
And your position is???

My position is that when naive people (scientists, teachers, students, religious people) all stop confusing evolution/natural selection (that all life evolves continuously over time, adpating to survive an ever changing environment) from biogenesis (that a single organism develeped out of a puddle of proteins, and all life came forth from this organism) then there will be no more need for arguement.


the evidence for evolution is stong.
the evidence is biogenisis is weak, and is no stronger than a creationist theory.

i thought you said you're a mathematician ... you can't understand evolution and claim that macroevolution doesn't work. Proof by induction

 

[MikeyIs4Dcats]

Originally posted by: broon

Originally posted by: MikeyIs4Dcats
KDOT > MoDOT

That's the only thing in K that > M. Except the Kansas turnpike !=KDOT.

KDOT does maintain the Turnpike for the KTA though.

 

[sao123]

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: sao123

Originally posted by: broon
And your position is???

My position is that when naive people (scientists, teachers, students, religious people) all stop confusing evolution/natural selection (that all life evolves continuously over time, adpating to survive an ever changing environment) from biogenesis (that a single organism develeped out of a puddle of proteins, and all life came forth from this organism) then there will be no more need for arguement.


the evidence for evolution is stong.
the evidence is biogenisis is weak, and is no stronger than a creationist theory.

i thought you said you're a mathematician ... you can't understand evolution and claim that macroevolution doesn't work. Proof by induction

I never claimed any such thing.
Evolution says all life came from a single life singularity. Not disputed...
"that this single organism develeped out of a puddle of proteins" is in no way part of the evolutionary theory. this is biogensis.

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: sao123

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: sao123

Originally posted by: broon
And your position is???

My position is that when naive people (scientists, teachers, students, religious people) all stop confusing evolution/natural selection (that all life evolves continuously over time, adpating to survive an ever changing environment) from biogenesis (that a single organism develeped out of a puddle of proteins, and all life came forth from this organism) then there will be no more need for arguement.


the evidence for evolution is stong.
the evidence is biogenisis is weak, and is no stronger than a creationist theory.

i thought you said you're a mathematician ... you can't understand evolution and claim that macroevolution doesn't work. Proof by induction

I never claimed any such thing.
Evolution says all life came from a single life singularity. Not disputed...
"that this single organism develeped out of a puddle of proteins" is in no way part of the evolutionary theory. this is biogensis.

Well you can either do the biogenesis statistics using biochcm... or you can say that biochem is too hard and it was jebus that made it. But feel free to pick either one.
Uusing statistics we can come up with an estimate of a probability that random chemicals combined into polymers that randomly comined into replicating polmers ... into 256 basic proteins that makes up a simple genome. Using ID we say that god made it.

So in the end you have a probability of 1 in x^y that random molecules eventually combined into a simple genome. Or you have the idea that an imaginary supreme being made it. How the hell do you not see which one is more credible?

 

[BurnItDwn]

There's a lot of fvcktards in Kansas. That's all I've got to say about that.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: sao123

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: sao123

Originally posted by: broon
And your position is???

My position is that when naive people (scientists, teachers, students, religious people) all stop confusing evolution/natural selection (that all life evolves continuously over time, adpating to survive an ever changing environment) from biogenesis (that a single organism develeped out of a puddle of proteins, and all life came forth from this organism) then there will be no more need for arguement.


the evidence for evolution is stong.
the evidence is biogenisis is weak, and is no stronger than a creationist theory.

i thought you said you're a mathematician ... you can't understand evolution and claim that macroevolution doesn't work. Proof by induction

I never claimed any such thing.
Evolution says all life came from a single life singularity. Not disputed...
"that this single organism develeped out of a puddle of proteins" is in no way part of the evolutionary theory. this is biogensis.

Well you can either do the biogenesis statistics using biochcm... or you can say that biochem is too hard and it was jebus that made it. But feel free to pick either one.

So using statistics we can come up with an estimate of a probability that random chemicals combined into polymers that randomly comined into replicating polmers ... into 256 basic proteins that makes up a simple genome. Using ID we say that god made it. I wonder which one of these theories is scientific.

The trouble with that is that if you teach that you close the door on research. Why bother trying to figure it out if the correct answer is "god made it?"

 

[OutHouse]

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: broon
Darwin's theory is not any different than ID. Both are someone's idea of how things were. Neither belong in the classroom.

That's where you're wrong. The theory of evolution has generally been accepted by the scientific community, and as such belongs in a science class. ID has generally been rejected by the scientific community, so it does not belong in a science class. The theory of evolution is a deep subject, whereas ID is basically a footnote.

Its still a Theory.

that can not be proven and never will be proven. In fact I was watching MSNBC a few weeks ago and they had a report that at several large universities the science depts are taking a step back away from Darwins theory because the theory is just that and may be wrong. Dont ask me which universities because i dont remember.

 

[Fritzo]

Originally posted by: MrChad

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
This is particularly sad given that the Roman Catholic Church has officially endorsed Darwinian Evolution and rejected Creationism.

http://www.news.com.au/story/print/0,10119,17162341,00.html

ZV

Um, not exactly.

Poupard, for his part, stressed that what was important was that ?the universe wasn?t made by itself, but has a creator.? But he added, ?It?s important for the faithful to know how science views things to understand better.?

I'm Catholic, and my belief is that God created the universe along with all the laws of physics. We're a result of those laws, so in effect, we're his creations.

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: Citrix

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: broon
Darwin's theory is not any different than ID. Both are someone's idea of how things were. Neither belong in the classroom.

That's where you're wrong. The theory of evolution has generally been accepted by the scientific community, and as such belongs in a science class. ID has generally been rejected by the scientific community, so it does not belong in a science class. The theory of evolution is a deep subject, whereas ID is basically a footnote.

Its still a Theory.

that can not be proven and never will be proven. In fact I was watching MSNBC a few weeks ago and they had a report that at several large universities the science depts are taking a step back away from Darwins theory because the theory is just that and may be wrong. Dont ask me which universities because i dont remember.

Yes, a Theory in the scientific definiton of theory:
A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
One of the biggest and most annoying fallacies in this whole discussion (nationwide) is that the people on the ID side insist on using the colloquial definition instead of the scientific definition.

 

[dainthomas]

Originally posted by: Citrix

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: broon
Darwin's theory is not any different than ID. Both are someone's idea of how things were. Neither belong in the classroom.

That's where you're wrong. The theory of evolution has generally been accepted by the scientific community, and as such belongs in a science class. ID has generally been rejected by the scientific community, so it does not belong in a science class. The theory of evolution is a deep subject, whereas ID is basically a footnote.

Its still a Theory.

that can not be proven and never will be proven. In fact I was watching MSNBC a few weeks ago and they had a report that at several large universities the science depts are taking a step back away from Darwins theory because the theory is just that and may be wrong. Dont ask me which universities because i dont remember.

This is also a theory.

 

[thraashman]

I get so sick of people using the excuse that it's just a theory because they obviously don't understand what that means. A theory is not just some concept someone thought up one day and everyone then said, "yeah that sounds good we'll use that." Technically in biology, which is the realm of science evolution falls under, there are no laws like in physics. Very few things can actually be "proven" in biology. Theory is actually as high as it goes, once something makes theory it means it went through tons of research and tests to make it this far. Many many aspects of evolution can be proven, and that's why it continues to exist. Nothing has been disproven, it just hasn't yet been implicitly proven. And, seeing as how many of the things that we can prove about biology, evolution, and history directly contradict most religions, by scientific viewpoint, we have disproven religion.

 

[sao123]

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: sao123

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: sao123

Originally posted by: broon
And your position is???

My position is that when naive people (scientists, teachers, students, religious people) all stop confusing evolution/natural selection (that all life evolves continuously over time, adpating to survive an ever changing environment) from biogenesis (that a single organism develeped out of a puddle of proteins, and all life came forth from this organism) then there will be no more need for arguement.


the evidence for evolution is stong.
the evidence is biogenisis is weak, and is no stronger than a creationist theory.

i thought you said you're a mathematician ... you can't understand evolution and claim that macroevolution doesn't work. Proof by induction

I never claimed any such thing.
Evolution says all life came from a single life singularity. Not disputed...
"that this single organism develeped out of a puddle of proteins" is in no way part of the evolutionary theory. this is biogensis.

Well you can either do the biogenesis statistics using biochcm... or you can say that biochem is too hard and it was jebus that made it. But feel free to pick either one.

So using statistics we can come up with an estimate of a probability that random chemicals combined into polymers that randomly comined into replicating polmers ... into 256 basic proteins that makes up a simple genome. Using ID we say that god made it.

So you have a probability of 1 in x^y that random molecules eventually combined into a simple genome. Or you have the idea that an imaginary supreme being created life. How the hell do you not see which one is more credible?

Which brings me to next points
Proof by statistics and probability.
I now have a replica of the coin used for the coin toss in the last superbowl. using the same procedure as performed in the superbowl, I randomly called heads or tails and I flipped recording each. I performed this an excessively large number of times and have a well defined probability distribution. I will now use that to determine that given the team captain called heads, the flip for the first superbowl must have been a tails. and guess what.... its wrong.

Proof by re-enactment.
There are legends of an Irish monk (Saint Brendan) who explored the northern Atlantic, long before Columbus. Some of the legends sound as if America were discovered by Brendan. This book is subtitled, "Sailing to America in a leather boat to prove the legend of the Irish saints." This re-enactment proves that such a voyage is possible. But it falls far short of proving the legend.

 

[Saint Nick]

my state is full of retards

yes.

 

[Ilmater]

Originally posted by: MazerRackham
Go Jayhawks!

Missouri is the better state :: Mizzou is the better team.

It's a fact.

 

[sao123]

Originally posted by: thraashman
I get so sick of people using the excuse that it's just a theory because they obviously don't understand what that means. A theory is not just some concept someone thought up one day and everyone then said, "yeah that sounds good we'll use that." Technically in biology, which is the realm of science evolution falls under, there are no laws like in physics. Very few things can actually be "proven" in biology. Theory is actually as high as it goes, once something makes theory it means it went through tons of research and tests to make it this far. Many many aspects of evolution can be proven, and that's why it continues to exist. Nothing has been disproven, it just hasn't yet been implicitly proven. And, seeing as how many of the things that we can prove about biology, evolution, and history directly contradict most religions, by scientific viewpoint, we have disproven religion.

er yeah... math 101. nothing can ever be proven to be true (see above). It can only be assumed to be true until it is proven false.
er yeah... bio 101. Evolutionary theory does not include biogenesis (which describes the creation of life). it does not include/exclude/prove true/prove false any view on religion.

 

[Ilmater]

Originally posted by: shimsham
wheres the problem? sounds like democracy in action. the citizens of missouri want it taught, so they voted it in.

A) It wasn't the citizens of anywhere, it was the school board members.
B) Don't besmirch the great state of Missouri. This is a Kansas thing.

 

[Accipiter22]

Originally posted by: dainthomas

Originally posted by: Accipiter22
why can't one unproven theory (evolution) be taught alongside another unproven theory?

Just curious, I personally believe mostly in evolution.....but still it is just a theory, and so is intelligent design. It's no less plausible that a supreme being created life than the premise that it suddenly spontaneously warped into existance out of a puddle of goo....

"Intelligent Design" is not a scientific theory. It has no evidence that can be tested.

If you can devise a scientifically reproducible experiment that proves the existence of God, and explains who or what created God, then it can be taught in science class.

But Evolution can't be proven either, else it would be the Law of Evolution. The theory of evolution also has absolutely no explanation for how life started.

 

[Ilmater]

Originally posted by: Spoooon
Now, when they teach intelligent design in the classroom, are they limited to a Christian divine being? I think that, as long as they are going to teach the kids intelligent design, they ought to also introduce the possibility that some other supreme being or beings is responsible. Greek gods anyone?

FSM FTW!

 

[sao123]

Originally posted by: Accipiter22

Originally posted by: dainthomas

Originally posted by: Accipiter22
why can't one unproven theory (evolution) be taught alongside another unproven theory?

Just curious, I personally believe mostly in evolution.....but still it is just a theory, and so is intelligent design. It's no less plausible that a supreme being created life than the premise that it suddenly spontaneously warped into existance out of a puddle of goo....

"Intelligent Design" is not a scientific theory. It has no evidence that can be tested.

If you can devise a scientifically reproducible experiment that proves the existence of God, and explains who or what created God, then it can be taught in science class.

But Evolution can't be proven either, else it would be the Law of Evolution. The theory of evolution also has absolutely no explanation for how life started.

OMFG... can you people not read and understand...

Evolution starts at this point.... There is 1 life. Every other life comes from it. Evolution does not care, does not attempt to explain, nor does it even matter how this singular life got there. The question of where/how this life came about is biogenesis. they are 2 separate, distinct, unrelated topics.

 

[shimsham]

Originally posted by: Rockzilla

Originally posted by: shimsham
wheres the problem? sounds like democracy in action. the citizens of missouri want it taught, so they voted it in.

There's also a seperation of church in state in there too. Why does it seem like all the liberal states want to make anything religous including the word Christmas or pledge of alleigance illegal and all the conservative states want to forget logic and replace it for religous cop-outs. Why can't kids learn facts at school and exercise their constitutional rights without everyone who isn't in school or doesn't have kids trying to force an agenda on them. Science is about presenting facts, and evolution like other theories is just a hypothesis with strong facts to support it. If parents want their kids to discount it they can take them to church. Just like everything else in this country nobody is making them DO or BELIEVE anything. Believe or don't beleive evolution, say or don't say the pledge of allegeince but don't ruin everybody else's education to cater to your agenda.

theyre not sanctioning any religion, just teaching the "flipside" to evolution. there are all kinds of things taught in school that not everyone agrees on the facts, yet there is no great outcry unless it comes to religion/origin of the universe. thats just human nature, i guess. and as youve said, no one is making anyone believe anything.

yes, i understand science and how it works. but in a high school class they dont get deep enough into anything really to say they are practicing true science. its just a teacher spouting out what the book says, and students told thats how it works. much like church.

i think people/states pushing id is just a cause of religion being cast out of society and people that participate in religion grasping to keep it in.